tv Munk Debate on Chinas Role in the World CSPAN May 13, 2019 11:18pm-1:17am EDT
arguments have been distorted in the doorknob rattled or shaken up art you don't know what to say that you've got to say something. ♪ i think it'ss time for this toxc zero-sum mad ms. to stop. >> i haven't seen anybody be a bigger snowflake than white men who complain. you've got to share. it's not your world it's everybody's world. >> barack obama systematically rebuilt with our willingness to work through the republocrats that you must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies. >> whatever you want to call the system, mafia state, and fire it's a disaster for ordinary russians.
he's a candidate as america's first, building huge walls come it must all be related to the size of his hands. [laughter] we can have a vote between prefers breasts debate co. british to canadians. >> to know right from wrong we don't need them to minister to us to be able to have a moral argument. >> it wouldn't be for long. they would find fun in a thrift store and save remember we had been. >> we do not want sympathy, we want opportunities. >> it is a slander for the mostly religious. >> it is that kind of restraint
and foreign-policy obama represents the i guess what i'm telling you is he's sort of a closet canadian. [applause] ♪ ladies and gentlemen, welcome. it's great. to have you here tonight. thank you. for the debate on china, it is my privilege to have the opportunity to organize the debate series and to once again serve as your moderator. i want to start tonight by welcoming the north american audience turning into the debate on television we are a partner with seatac, the public affairs channel, c-span across the continental united states and on the pbs sister station. it's great to have that audience
with us this evening. a warm hello also to our friends watching on the website of our exclusive social media partner dot facebook.com. stay with us after the debate we will have an expert panel featuring the opinion on "the wall street journal" and the top canadian thinkers on tonight's debate topic, that is all coming up live right after the main stage debate. finally, hello to you the over 3,000 people who filled the whole or i for another debate aa special thanks to the premium members and subscribers to your generous supportrs for better debates of the big issues of the day we cannot do this without you. our ability year in and year out to bring some of the world's biggest minds and best thinkers to the stage wouldn't be possible without the commitment and generosity of one foundation
and family so please join me in a round of applause for the peter and melanie monk foundation and family. thank you for your generous support. the philanthropic legacy lives on. this evening will focus on the geopolitical issue off the momet it's been on our screens all day today and it's been dominating the news all week. it's the issue of the impact of the resurgent china on the international balance of power. we are going to the support of this critical issue by asking the question is china a threat to the liberal international order and it's important for us to spend a moment to define some of the terms what do we mean by the phrase the liberal
international order, i see it as the catchphrase for the world all of us have grown up in. the world that favored the free movement of people, ideas, goods and capital. it's a world order guaranteed, supported by the rule of law, setting and observing rules and it's been supported by a broad commitment over decades to pursue multilateralism as a way ofur decision-making over unilateralism and it's a world that's given nationstates they ability for self-determination, and also a world that's been guaranteed to a large extent over five decades now the military power and economic strength of the united states of america so we are going to ask this evening some tough questions, are the geopolitical
interests in this addition is it division of the worlthe vision w it should be incompatibles with the values and institutions of the liberal international order or is this view just a fundamental misunderstanding of how china sees the world instead of being its enemy, is tha it in fact an important ally to the liberal international order in the era off multipolar competition and confusion i into iraq to a seemingly rising american unilateralism? let's find out for getting the debate onto center stage to get the debate underway. arguing for tonight's resolution be it resolved china is a threat to the liberal international order. as america's former national security adviser.
please welcome hr mcmaster. [applause] the debating partner tonight is one ofri america's most influential advisers on china today. he's counseled multiple u.s. administrations and he's played ast key role in informing president donald trump's strategy. please welcome from washington, d.c. michael. [applause] one great team deserves another and speaking against the notion be at the thrift to the international order, the liberal international order is the singapore diplomat best-selling
author and former president of the united nations security council. [applause] the debating partner is someone who made the trip this evening from beijing. he's one of the leading thinkers on globalization and the founder of the center of the base globalization. please welcome. [applause] those in the audience int and te
watching online, join in the debate. for the online audience we have a pool going throughout the night on the website, munkdebates.com. you can vote on the resolution and performance the next hour and a half so please be sure to go to that website and also a to those in the house i need your help with a key part of what makes the evening a success, the countdown clock. we are going to see this come up on the screen tightening the various debate element when it reaches zero join me in a round of applause and that will ensure thatat debate remains on schedu. it's time for the first vote ine the hall on tonight's resoluti
resolution. all of you were given an electronic voting card. for those out of your pocket and we are going to have a vote on the resolution and that question live. you're in favor of the motion you are going to press one, if you are opposed, be. ae or be more in favor or opposed. for those of you watching online, again we have theon pool going, munkdebates.com/boat you can vote now and gauge the collective score of the audience now versus the end of the evening. i'm going to give this a little more time for the data to populate through the computer and the tabulated and then in a moment we are going to close the
first vote and go to the second question. hopefully everyone's had a chancece to vote on the motion d you will be able to do that again at the end also. do we have those results now on the screen can i see the results for the first audience vote on a motion? 76% of you believe china is a threat to the liberal international order and only 24% opposed. so an interesting start to the evening but remember we are now going to see how fluid or minds are. [laughter] was i unaware of a wager being made? we are now going to vote on the second question argue open to changing your mind tonight depending what you hear on the stage between the various
debaters could youre, opinion be swayed from one side to the other press a viewer in open-minded critical thinker willing to take a second look at 74 versus 26 or you are committed and going to vote the way you did at the end so i'm going to let those results built up for a moment if you think you could change your vote or you think you are not in the online audience go to that poll you can participate are you open to changing your mind those of you watching on d live stream. let's close that question and cross our fingers that our computer system is tabulating that as we speak. look at that. are you open to changing your booktv 3% so this is a very fluid debate.
i thought it could move public opinion to the bear case for the resolution. okay, enough of me lets get to debate underway. opening statements labele we wit six minutes on the clock for each. we have agreed on the order in advance. hr mcmaster please kick us off. good evening. it's a privilege to be here in this wonderful forum. the chinese communist party has resolved to strengthen its grip on power, take center stage in the world and make good on a pledge to lead the development oto thedevelopment of new toolsa new international order sympathetic to chinese interest. the chinese communist party is not only strengthening an internal system that stifles human freedom and extend its
authoritarian control, it is exporting data model and undermining the international order. i ask that at the conclusion of tonight's debate you answer tonight's resolution does china threaten the liberal international order in the affirmative. the chinese communist party poses a threat not only to the chinese people, but also to the rest of the world. first, let's consider the international order and why we might want to preserve it. the liberal order is not in exclusively north american european or western. its key components are a representative governmentreprese rule of law, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the right to privacy and freedom of religion and free-market economiefree marketeconomies tht are entrepreneurial, work hard and contribute to society to build better lives for themselves and their families
and communities. i believe that canadians care about the liberal order because as a model democracy and a founding member of that order in wathe wake of the disastrous wod for the canadians know that liberalism is not only an ideology but alsoo a system that protects the rights and mosaic society. the free world approach to china for the past three decades was predicated on the assumption that china would threaten international order. china now we believed would inevitably converge with the west and liberalize its economy and ultimately liberalize its political system to accelerate the transformation we welcome china into the border, both in the markets, invest in our
capital, trained the chinese engineers, scientists and officers of the people's liberation army but as happens sometimes in life, we were disappointed. we underestimated the strength of the party and resisting reform and underestimating the full ideology plays driving the policy of the party. he's reinvigorated ideology to an extent not seen since the cultural revolution which killed tens of millions of chinese. purging the party to strengthen his control. he punished 1.5 billion officials over three times the total federal public service of canada and implemented a mandatory study sessions and applications on fox. the party is harnessing new technologies to shut down alternative sources of information while creating a
surveillance police state more intrusive and big brothers and n george orwell's novel 1984. ethnic and religious minorities are subject to the worst forms of oppression. 1.5 to as many as 3 million people are in concentration campsig undergoing a campaign of brainwashing designed to erase their religious and cultural identities. construction of new camps is underway. universities, student activists disappear only to reappear months later on confession videos. hundreds of lawyers, legal assistants and professors have been detained. books on the rule of law are removed from university shelves andrs destroyed. censorship of all media and communications c party obsessio. no alternative perspectives to
the steady diet of propaganda. much of it anti-western and anti-canadian and anti-liberal international order. the combined, antarctica anti-u.s. and canadian propaganda with hostagetaking after the illegal detainment of a chinese company executive for charges of bank fraud in the united states. china has expanded the propaganda efforts overseas. those efforts recently exposed in studies in australia, new zealand and the united states shape thshaped the popular opinn ways that support o the goals. chinese students overseas are under surveillance and are not able to engage in the exchange of ideas essential to higher education. the united front even creates fake organizations that take the theministers signature of documents. ethe party wants to criticism of
the most egregious aggression such as its attempt to own the south china sea. to do business in china the party demands the companies and their employees to support a foreign policy on tibet, taiwan and other issues to obscure facts such as how china while the commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions is poisoning the global environment and using its one build one road initiative. [applause] will let you take up some of those points in the rebuttal tharebuttal thatyou will get afg statements. you are up next with your opening remarks. >> thank you and good evening ladies and gentlemen and distinguished panelists. it's a great honor to be in toronto and i welcome this
debate. he painted a dark picture here but we have to look at it maybe objectivity. i have to tell you a personal story. i flipped through the cultural revolution 40 some years ago on the countryside making 5 cents a day at 35 years ago i came to canada and first-place toronto, the university of toronto, a great university and the first day i went into class somebody said can i touch you. why not? heated. i touched someone from greater china, so scary. i will tell you the reason why i have three proposals to make. first, china is a great beneficiary of international order.
since china opened up the u.s. about this wonderful including the united nations, world bank, imf, you name it, china and braced them all. 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty, less than 10% of the population and that corresponds to 70% of the global poverty reduction so very summers, the former president of harvard came to the think tank instead the transformationn in china probably will go down in history larger than the industrial revolution. the chinese gdp has gone up ten times because they embraced it in the international order un ad
also over 100 countries benefited from the economic activity. china also contradicted the gdp growth of the world so it's become the engine of the world economy. every year 850 billion around the world and spend 200 billion for the local economy. it's opened up and spent over 6 million over the world including canada such a great country. second, a great contributor to the international order. china is the second-largest donation to the united nations and also the second-largest peacekeeping among the council members and also has committed to the terrace agreement.
the u.s. has backed off and the defeat of china has the responsibilities and the duty. [applause]e] moreover china set up an investment infrastructure bank. canada wa was an undercover uk a member, germany is a member. actually 95 members in the investment bank is the largest recipient. they actually launched the initiative five years ago but this is still in the process of becoming more and more beneficial. 44 billion u.s. dollars around the countries explained 127
including italy, switzerland, a lot of countries. china is really contributing for decades. it's time to contribute come a time for china to make a contribution so it still needs a vodafone, it's not perfect but the world just released a report the cost was cut down by one to 2% ahead of a global economic growth. number three, china is a great opportunity for the global system. today jpmorgan just concluded its 15th in beijing.
the chair of anna jpmorgan quoted about china has witnessed the transformation to benefit the countries of the world from the growth of the economy so china the largest market of the world next will be 800 million, china has established 850,000 into the u.s. -- china is the largest market in the world and canada for the last 12 years china increased 12% if bustier 18%. thank you. [applause]
we will give more time and the rebuttals. michael you are affixed with your statement. is it okay to walk around clark's >> do i whatever you'd like. >> it possible to agree with everything said, all these good things about china and its possible to agree but still vote for hr my position on the resolution that china currently coming in than going to give you the year i think the problem began is currently a threat to the global international order. i think the problem began about 2011 just about the time you were having the debate here when you have henry kissinger in his first debate and at that time there was a power struggle over who should become the leader and something called singing ribosomes we didn't pay much attention at the time doctoror kissinger went to hear this
contender singing the ribosomes. at the time someone else paid careful attention. he made a visit and begin to adopt the language of the hard-liners in china and he won the race. chinese politics isn't like the new hampshire primary or debates on television where you can say you are sleepy, no you are low-energy. [laughter] chinese politics is played like a blood sport. the gentleman who lost actually went to jail and all of his supporters went to jail. the issue at the time was whether to continue the liberal reforms that china had begun as early as 1980 during the world bank imf study in the special agencies into joining every single one of them taking over the leadership in a number of them. all that began to go down in the
battles of the '90s we all thought they were going to recover and bigoted. the hard-liners were back so the back and forth now looks like something really serious has happened in china large numbers of reformers are in jail and it's a bit unfair to ask henry to represent china tonight because his think tank is one of the most influential in the world in the top 100 of the world. when i visited his think tank to receive the hard-liners could not? no, they are winning. they are in power. i see the reformers and the good part of china but they are losing. if you look forward to 2049 which some say is the end date of the book title a borrowed i d from the chinese over the 100 year marathon they say this marathon which will be peaceful will be over when china's gdp three times america's gdp.
at the beginning of the conduct we arere seeing a over the last few years that began under president obama is china breaking commitments and promises saying for example we willll never privatize the south china sea which is a voluntary promise by the president. as they say the inc. was no longer dry when we begin to see missiles and military deployments in the south china sea so there's now a long list that has been given to you freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, they kept theom free market that as it appears is free it's been reduced. freedom from the communist party controlled in your company. that seems to be gone so the question becomes how to turn china around. can we get back to a cooperative china where the reformers in power and the hard-liners i hate to say it's the hard way there is in jail.
how to do that, one way is to vote for our side of the resolution. [applause] and then you will head off what is called the almost inevitable war that is coming. it's not just the united states by the way. you have a great statesman who was canada's ambassador to the united states 1945 he participated in the creation of the un charter and was supposed to be the general vetoed by the soviets could be proposed again in 1953 to be the secretary general of the un and vetoed again by the soviets. so canada has been involved deeply and has a stake in this international order. i have to say in conclusion if we look ahead to 2049, everything seems to get worse with china calls the cancer
increases. the censorship increases. we've had 150 tibetan monks in silicon fire and suicidal protests. that gets worse. one to 3 million muslims in concentration camps gets worse. perhaps old reformers will be in jail and won't be able to have henry come back in 2049 because he will be in jail. it's a pretty grim picture and to me i am nostalgic for the 80s when i was working for president reagan we sold six weapons systems to china, wet sold torpedoes and i remember him actually delivering them. that is sufficient chinese-american propagation but not what we are seeing happening now so i'm hoping that this debate will help us in getting china back to where it should be. i think i should finish by saying the chinese have done an
excellent job understanding united nations systems. the singapore ambassador place -- [applause] i'm hoping to hear from him about china and the un. we will save the last opening statement and six minutes on the clock. >> thank you. i'i am very happy to be back in canada because i've considered myself an honorary canadian. i got an honorary doctorate in simplified summers in for ten years high commissioner to canada i learned something very good from a well-known canadian wayne gretzky. [laughter] she said skate to where the puck
is going, not to where it is. where is the not where it's going. reso where is it going? it is important to realize that today we live in an era where we think far greater change in 30 years than we've seen in 300 years or even 3,000 years. future historians would be amazed at what's happened in this era and everything is changing. to give you one they mention of how it is changing, from 1800 west 2,000 years the largest economies were the result of china and india. the past 200 years have been a
major historical admiration. all come to a natural end. [applause] [laughter] it's natural to see the return from china and india. when you voted to see china as a threat to the national order what are you expressing it's a deep feeling that china has changedd the world, and it has went ahead 10% and bigger than the united states in 2014 and 34 years everything changes but what is china threatening them is a threatening the liberals
international order or is china threatening the global balance of power the number one power in the world represented by -- [applause] fizzling one simple answer they are strikinairstrike in the gloe of power in i told you why in the international little order because why has china come out of nowhere and in 30 years became the largest economy, how did china do it? they did it because of the rules of the liberal international order. many of you will be confused by disgraced liberal international order. i would completely agree and
they said time is not a liberal domestic order that isn't the issue of i the day. it is and whether it is a liberal domestic order. the issue of the day is whether china is working with the liberal international order. and i can tell you that the liberal international order is because i was born in the era of a few called the international order in the british colony and as you know when you're colonized you have no rights whatsoever and china have went through 100 years of hell from 1842 to 1949 and then in the liberal international order began china discovered two big things that worked for china. one of the first pillar of the national order of its sovereignty every country can then decide its own future, what
it wants to do and then the second thing is rules to ensure what you can and cannot do in the international space not domestic space but international space and they want to get you one statistic i hope you will bear in mind throughout the whole debate over the world's population of 7.5 billion people in thee world only 12% visit the west. 88% live outside of southwest. you want to judge china's international behavior with me emphasize international behavior. ask yourself how is the 88% of the world reacting to china's rice, and amazingly they are
welcoming it, cooperating with it. my partner described what happened and countries are ready to join. why would the united states want to support a number one competitor, they won't come up with the rest of the world is doing so so the debate is about the liberal international order. please pay attention to the international sentiments. thank you. [applause] i think we have a debate we are going to put two and a half minutes on the clock and do a round up rebuttals and we will start in the same order of the opening remarks. hr mcmaster, europe first. >> they would have you believe we should be happy about making theli world safe for
authoritarianism episode today the way china exports its model is to use this program of the one build one road to index the nation's way beyond what they could ever repay. 33 of the countries have already reached an unsustainable level of debt and are already in distress so what china does this undermines the sovereignty of the country's by trying to re-create the history where sure you can live in the system as long asri you accept the relationship at the center of that system. key sure is talking about sovereignty so he would have us believe on the 30th anniversary of the tiananmen square massacre that the chinese people really enjoy having no rights including instead of the authoritarian system. it used to be that he spoke for
the people in asia but that he speaking for everybody. north america and the west. how do the countries in the region you've china's efforts to export its authoritarian system? debut it wa with a great deal of concern and even fear. what you've seen recently is a reaction across the world where small countries like sri lanka who can no longer service their debts without the corrupt government that welcomed in the financing and created this relationship. a similar phenomenon happenedntn maldives and it's happened in this hemisphere. consider for example how china is making money on the backs of the venezuelan people by keeping up the cash flow in exchange for allo the legal exports at a discount which china immediately resells on the international market. the new prime minister of malaysia andelel other countries
subjected to this kind of jerelationship has said this reminds him of the unequal treaties to which china was subjected in the 19th century and early 20th century. so you see this model being exported and it is not a u.s. or canada china problem. it is a competition between the open society and authoritarian closed system. ..
. >> for the last 20 or 30 years we don't have anything really to work on for the international development plan. so china is absorbing and benefiting from the countries coming to china and then to contribute so for example, the financial times recently just released a report on all the projects china has done over the last ten years. thirty-eight projects in 24 countries 40 china was off in
11 they were financially delayed so there is no evidence to support that also you can see the trend built by a china. to help the local. economy say the first time in history but so will china to generate these employment opportunities. and also the poor that china has helped to manage so for the handling so there is an
example of course, let's work together. let's make that prosper. [applause] . >> michael go add it. >> the global international order actually did not begin in 1845 with the un charter. and the only threat to that is not china. the order including india and japan and to obscure little towns in germany in 1638 to
a is can we structure a set of treaties that would invent sovereignty? and there'll be a set of rules to prevent water from happening among the major powers and third, they had to abide by the rules of those countries it worked for a long time but not ultimately another set of rules was designed in 1815 again to avert war. to maintain the order to set up a system and it lasted 100 years. the late league of nations similar story but then america started to get angry over the arrangement so it failed but world war ii was one last effort that builds and all the previous efforts china for the first 20 years was not part of
it but was kept out with the korean war and other reasons but they took it very seriously. 's only recently the past decadehi that china has shifted india and japan see this also is nott just canada and the united states it is the neighbors the indians are now the number two arms purchaser in the united states they face a military threat on the border two years ago china back down ultimately as the forces were surrounded with the chinese were trying toth do so japan's reaction or the massiveen spending defense spending on space space weapons, hypersonic weapons will series of things that china once told us we will never do that. [applause]
you can choose what to wear, where to live what to work and what to study and each year in this amazing land of non- freedom 134 million chinese travel overseas every year freely so now second point and paradox that paradox is the biggest threat to the liberal international order is not a nonliberal society like china
but a liberal society like united states of america. [applause] two of the leading scholars in america so i believe the biggest threat comes from the united states of america not from china because at liberal international order from suicide of its creators so think of that. [applause] . >> now we will get into the middle of the debate and picking up where we left off and touching on the news of
this last week with trade tensions between china and the united states ratchet up. will you admit this trade dispute is not about defending the liberal international order but pursuing america's pursuit he - - pursue two technologically to create huge damage to the critical bilateral relationship and unmore importantly knocking out the pins from under the international liberal order doesn't have america has something to answer for? [laughter] . >> actually this is the chinese communist party talking points. [laughter] [applause]
's what you have seen in the last two years is our recognition that the assumptions are which we based our policy were wrong. but it's just too bad that the policies are undermining those organizationser and all promises made were broken that china would open its market to international companies and they have with the proviso but you transfer all intellectual property to chinese companies who act as an extension of the lachinese communist party plaque but love - - [applause] so your company has to adhere to the poly on this policy the chinese communist party and you better not criticize putting up millions of people
in concentration camps. if the position on tibet with major airlines subjected to this coercion. but will you also see with china in breaking the trade and economic protocols is they use that coercive power of the market to soften criticism of china because even as we have been subjected in the west to be unprecedented scale so to make a problem between the united states and china but the people are waking up why are the wealthiest people of china buying up all of your real estate in vancouver? [laughter] [applause] they know u the changes. and they want to get the hell
out of there. so we have to recognize china's behavior. we can have a conversation way they are behaving like that but the president has maintained his grip on power even for the chinese people if you don't liberalize the economy will be tough to grow it unless you do steal their intellectual property. >> i want to bring in henry on that point. it's clear the deal is held up largely because china's leadership does not want to give in that force technology transfer for aren't those
the liberal international order. >> trade is just in arena they are fighting. that the gnp became so big and this is what all great powers do. on the part of the united states as a rising competitor through the united states and china. believe me a lot of that is propaganda you know, what is going on one day they are fighting people know what is
really going on. so my advice remember this old problem. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [applause] . >> you had been advisor to president trump many would sayhi of american unilateralism we know what that feels like in terms of a trade deal that we were required to sign. [applause] tradede deal as a point of fact i am sure you aree aware that has prevented entering into an agreement with beijing but even having negotiations.
so how is that in favor or support of those principles that you speak for with liberal international order? [applause]? .. >> i can explain the trade strategy of that interest you but i am more interested because as a very important point when china and the united states grows too close together in the past or even the smaller countries in the world, that affects everybody because under g to buy one of your predecessors my teacher
at columbia that idea is all the main issues can pretty much be solved by those great economies and they can just take it. that vision is still in washington d.c. looking at the president's comments about the end of the trade war to get the tariffs with more us investment and the commerce secretary welcoming chinese investment everything else to attract more chinese investors so that has to be kept in mind if china stops threatening the global international order. snow also an important scenario both countries have
begun with those military exercises with more between the two countries. because kissinger's book on china and i can afford to praise his book. [laughter] and on the scale of world war i millions will die. would rather have the elephants make love then fight each other. isn't the chinese the persistent victims of aggression? in the heat of the trade negotiations through the south
china sea without even asking. they did not even asked permission. the last time i look i did not see the chinese navy sitting off of staten island so explain to the audience china has restraint but us projects aggression. >> china shows restating restraint by building islands in c the south china sea destroying an ecosystem by the way and militarizing them against international law and court ruling. so laying claim to the ocean not just any ocean but one fifth the global trade flows and china has benefited from the liberal international order to recognize nobody has
to asked permission for global commerce so why are they doing that? because this is explicit which henry cannot even talk about because he would be detained when he gets back to china because to create exclusionary areas of control exclusionary areas of privacy to push the united states out because mithout it would intimidate countries like singapore and wonder how your government feels about being in politics for the chinese government policies because that is much different than you do. what we have to recognize is all free and open societies
, it is time to have a conversation with china and explain that the activities to explain hegemonicie control over the indo pacific region and to challenge the united states, canada and a free and opente society for what we stand for globally has got to stop and the chinese communist party has to recognize china is risking all of those tremendous gains lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. so wasta just military issue. they are all integrated so i would like to say quickly let's ask the country in our hemisphere.
a 19 billion-dollar dam built at the base of an active volcano all of the officials in that deal are in jail because the china uses corruption and ultimately coercion. what did ecuador get in return now? it gives up all oil exports to uchina that sells at a markup on the global market. that is what china's system looks like as a landgrab in the south chinaat sea with servile relationships and dependencies to challenge the free and open societies and sinternational order.
[applause] so that direct charge as an apologist for the chinese government. so address that. stay on the topic of military security component as there are a litany of charges i would like a response to. . >> now speaking on behalf of the singapore government. [laughter] i think my job is to just tell the truth to see what is factually correct or incorrect but to agree with my position or the chinese position and in that military dimension.
first so that power on planet earth that hasn't gone to war in 40 years and hasn't fired one bullet is china. and by contrast and that peaceful presidency through barack obama the united states dropped 26000 bombs on seven countries. these are the facts in my being an apologist for the chinese government? i think it may be a secret. [laughter]
a very senior diplomat there was a dispute within the united states and canada with the waterway of canada under the united states - - united nations conventions and then to carry on and then the united states responded by sending a destroye destroyer. but then you wisely decided not to do so. very wise.
and by the way so the court has ruled to still occupy so to set an example, seriously of obeying international law that is the best way to abide by international law. [applause] t . >> first of all, what i would like to do is to point out that a good percentage of the bombs that the united states dropped were in support of
allied and canadian soldiers courageously fighting alongside us. [applause] . >> so the next portion of the debate has to be human rights. so in your openingng remarks come you talk about this larger call to arms in a world where individual rights are respected. but how can you refute the fact that china cares about human rights. show what they have accomplished? the hundred 50 million people lifted out of poverty. what an incredible accomplishment of any nation or civilization. how do you say basic human rights is caring is less than esat you like a freedom of the
press, the right to academic freedom, don't those seem secondary in the country that faces urgent social problems? . >> let me tell you a story. there were a couple communist party leaders that both got fired and both went to jail. they said basic human rights is good to bring as many as we can out of poverty and they succeeded. but they also stuck up not only for human rights but are, elections, translated madison into a draft constitution. nobody knew this out the time in the eighties, because the second of the two parties wrote memoirs and described
how far things had gone in the eighties. toured a rule of law and open elections and multiparty systems as i emphasize where did he spend the rest of his life? only much later do we learn about this internal debate. so yes china knows about basic human rights and had great success to pull people out of poverty i think it is the greatest achievement of all. eagreatest achievement of all. but they also know, the . . . . of are we going to eitr or a sort of global surveillance technology system they want to
export the whole world where you will be evaluated by which magazines you subscribe to, what kind of food you buy, what you said surreptitiously perhaps to someone else in your credit card scores on the social credit card system will then evaluate how would you should be treated at the next time you go to the canadian government. i don't think you want that. this wasn't the case ten or 20 years ago. it's something new and is going to compromise the rights of the whole world if they are not called on the same asked to st stop. people in this room and your opponents here would like to frame the debate as a contest between not just variations of the liberal order but something much more dangerous potentially which is a contest between
freedom and despotism. is that a fair way to characterize the debate? >> i don't think it is a fair way because china has actually its own situation. the population like that people in different regions is a bit different challenge so. they've embraced the economy. with the wallet andnd everythin, china has 1 million users and is a catch for society so what to buy into what to do. and what to do. you exercise your vote and everything.
i don't think they've reached yet but now a basic medicare for the whole country like canada. i think that if the people develop this you can imagine the infrastructure there they have more assets and wants peace. it's important for china to keep the peace and improve the international order for the benefit and for the benefit of
the rest of the world. >> your opponents are saying your division of the debate of the international order as a global phenomenon versus the domestic politics is false because the domestic dimension informs the international behavior and action. why do you refute that? >> you always end up with perspectives.e it's a fact i completely agree with genital mcmaste -- generalr they are higher than those of china it is a freedom of speech and it is a fact. the other question to us is this
society is progressing forward and which society is regressive. let me give you three important facts about regression. number one, the only major developed society where the average income of the bottom 50% has gone down over the past 30 years is the united states of america. fact number two, and they mentioned this in my book two thirds of american households don't have $500 cash for emergency purposes. i think two thirds of chinese households may have gotten there already. fact number three, and this is
the most damaging facts. fact. when i studied philosophy in the year 74-75, if anyone said to me in the future, the first major developed western country to reintroduce torture will be the united states of america it would never have happened in my lifetime. believe me it was a great personal shock to me. how is it that the world's biggest defender of human rights became the first major developed country to reintroduce torturey and amazingly enough.
they were taken from new york to serbia. i would like to live in a world. to achieve that world had there been no torture anywhere in the world between the united states and china lets work together. a plus nobody says any of our societies are flawless but we debate them and get exposed and improve. i would also ask how many people
are trying to become chinese citizens. there is a disparity between those who want to come to the free and open societies and those who prefer not to live in authoritarian closed police surveillance states. [applause] there's one new development. china set upel a new organizatin called a national demonstration. china issued over two or 3,000 last year that actually experienced a report for overseas there is also
opportunityo is there . let's move onto two more topics before i go to the closing statement.cl first is closing technology because this has been a big feature of the trade negotiations that have been ongoing but also this increasing rivalry between china and the united states and the rest of the world who has the technological competitive advantage. you served as national security advisor. why is the united states of bullying its allies into removing the technology from their networks when you don't even have a technology to sell to these countries out of the united states?
and we know that you are spying on all of us anyway. [laughter] the fosco is this the pot calling the kettle black? >> with china is doing is engaging a systemic campaign of espionage to steal sensitive technologies, intellectual property and apply it not only to the effort to dominate the sectors of the emerging technology but to apply to an unprecedented military buildup and what china did in 2015 when they visited the rose garden. they shifted the espionage to the large portions of it over into the private sector and produced the law said you have
to support the collection efforts. why would anyone in their right mind but china and establish a communication infrastructure if you know the authoritarian police state is going to collect all the data, label the data and use it against you later hundreds of thousands of records from our federal employees have been transferred to the chinese communist party. of the ten communications, they already own those. they have access to communications between the u.s. and canada by controlling those hubs so it is irresponsible on the part of any government who would let the chinese communist party into their assistance. if the party treats its own people the way it does, do you think they are going to treat you any better, i don't think
so. this could be the extinguishment of privacy globally is what china is doing by the establishment of this infrastructure. >> the key issue here is surveillance and spying and i completely agree with general mcmaster won the story at one point i was in vancouver a few weeks ago not to buy property but to participate in a talk and the most powerful speaker was a british journalist if you ever watch the talk she describes graphically how facebook as she says in her words destroyed the british democracy by injecting
life into the facebook account without a trace. it took months and months before the british parliament could actually see the lie is that facebook had said so what is the solution to the solution for the problems of facebook while any such corporations is to create an open multilateral rules agreed to by all countries that's what the liberal international order is about and this is what is acceptable in cyber warfare and this is what is unacceptable in cyber warfare. and i can say confidently that the number one country that will oppose this will be the united states of america because the united states of america has by far the best surveillance capability of any country in the
world and my source for this is the best in cyber warfare number one the united states and number two is russia and israel and the united kingdom and number five is china that is the reason why they get caught, because they are so bad at it. the [applause] let's go on to the last topic and then closing statements. originating from toronto, canada and i want to go around and get distinguished group's advice on when the elephants are making more or making love, what do smaller powers like canada, like singapore say or do, what is the
strategy, let's hope this may be to simply survive this superpower rivalry. >> the smaller power as you phrase it can have an enormous amount of influence and they gather together in coalition and one of the organizations that does this the most important is the un general assembly. there've been efforts to declare the practice torture or does surveillance if you do kind of a test account it won't pass. i praise the shaping of the charter in 1945 and is almost time as the secretary general of the un. the structure itself is probably the most important part of the global international order it includes arms controls treaties
and canada also played an important role getting into the power of the soviet union and russia and the united states to have bilateral nuclear arms control treaties. there's a number of success and china has destroyed one of the most important arms control treaties there ever was the so-called intermediate nuclear missiles of a certain range that we and the russians bot forwarde story completely and we have teams in the factories to make sure nobody builds missiles like that. everything was fine and then china began to deploy missiles, thousands of them in just that range. and to withdraw from the treaty in response to the nuclear
missiles to even say we are going to place more emphasis on nuclear forces than ever before so it will have something of a countermeasure to what china is doing recently they asked can you join us in three-way talks to reduce those and others because soon the entire arms control agreement would expire could you also reduce defense spending, help us reduce defense spending in all three capitals. they gave their answer yesterday. no. in the international system that worries me a lot. they can say we like this idea of talks. china, why don't you get onboard? >> it is a false debate about
china versus the united states and everybody in between gets trampled on. it's an issue between free and open societies in the systems and despite the narrative of unilateralism there's been tremendous multinational cooperation on con fronting the predatory and dangerous policies of the chinese communist party's. if you consider for example the bad effects of the one dot one road towards creating debt dependencies and failed projects and bolstering corrupt authoritarian regimes from as i mentioned venezuela to cambodia to zimbabwe, what we've done is worked with the united states, canada, japan, australia, new zealand have come together to say there have to be some standards. so, now we are establishing standards that can help the
threat to these other countries in seattland vehicles are puttir money together so that there are financial alternatives to the predatory policies of the chinese communist party's. have we mentioned the funding of some of the projects, very few projects were funded by the aai 80 that is another example and another is december 20 of last year canada was at the vanguard of 16 other countries who simultaneously exposed this static campaign up espionage affected in all nations simultaneously the range of sanctions and indictments against the individuals that were engaged in espionage promised that they would never
do again. to trick us into thinking that this is about the united states and china the european union last month recognized as a systematic rival promoting alternative of governments into so recent media exposure is so they work together to expose how the chinese communist party could have allowed this drug for this murderous drug offense and fentanyl to be exported and it's even higher than the death rate in the united states and so journalists, investigative journalists not just for humans play a very important role in exposing the activities and efforts of the chinese communist party's export its authoritarian
model. [applause] as a student of philosophy i would say neither of them answered your question. the question is what do they do and they went on to give speeches. the question is what do most states do and by the way you think the 193 member states of the un take away china and the u.s., you ask what were they like, they would lik work like r united nations and a stronger international law and they would like things to be adjudicated by impartial bodies had not demands made by one superpower on the other countries. [applause] i know when mcmaster was a
security adviser, she fought a very noble fight and tried very hard to persuade president trump not to walk away from multilateral agreements or walk away from the accord were the transpacific merchant. guess what happened, she failed and that is the sad story when you have an honorable man like him trying to do the right thing and it fails, you have to ask yourself a question how do you live in a world where the superpower decides to walk away from multilateral agreements. the answer to that, i can tell you and with the ambassador at the un for ten years, and over the course of the ten years i've
spoken with some degree of intensity from africa, latin america and elsewhere. the one thing we agree upon is to strengthen and make it the place you can go there and partially. the only protection for the small states like singapore is a stronger multilateral order i think the debates and the way out of the international order it's been 75 years since after the world war that we haven't seen for accidental because of this international order so let's maintain it. i think that canada is a great
country and not long ago have meetings that can play an enormous role and also canada is unique as a neutral position so it is important to speak up. you have a multicultural system, english, french, everyone gets along. for the next seven decades it's fundamentally changed where so much is intertwined and interconnected.
let's be realistic. let us walk together and make it more responsible. they need us and we cannot really be the international system to strengthen and maintain and china can be a contractor to be co- contribut contributor. we are now going to go to our closing statements and put three minutes on the clock and go in the reverse order of the opening statements. i'm going to exit stage left. you are first.
>> we are at a special moment of history where we have a rather narrow window of opportunity to create a better world for tomorrow and what is the narrow window of opportunity, it is that china is still number two not yet fully number one is prepared to accept the constraints of the liberal international order. china abides by the nature of agreements and when you work with china and the united nations as many of us have thought they try to support the un all the time, and i can say after ten years the object of
was to weaken the united nations and for the united states even trying to strangle china by contrast was prepared to give more to the un and the single biggest contributor of the peacekeepers for the united nations. so what is this window of opportunity? while it is still number two and willing to play by the rules, this is the moment for the united states to actually work with china and strengthen multilateral order and serve as a good role model as you know the united states is doing the opposite. it's walking away from the purest climate agreement and is
told from unesco and the transpacific partnership and the united nations human rights council i could go on and on. and the sad part of all of this is that the united states today is creating so many loopholes in international law that china will walk through tomorrow when it becomes number one. if they want to preserve this order that the best way to do it is to show guess we support you in making the international order a stronger one. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for a great performance. your closing statement, please.
you have three minutes up on the clock. >> it seems to me threatening the global international order may come down to just one thing, cheating. in your own relationships and organizations you belong to, countries that you belong to if you are embezzling come if you lie or cheat or as a punishment for it. in international politics, since the agreement i mentioned 400 years ago there is no punishment for a country that cheat. it's only the moral authority of the powers that can try to persuade the country to change its ways. but think olet me give a couplee haven't mentioned before why the trade decisions tonight one minute after midnight may be so important to china.
america tortures people more than china that is it unusual competition i don't even know how to address. the issue is is cheating okay? that the joint united nations agencies, interpol is a good example when the chinese have a huge prestigious achievement for china no process at home put in jail head of international agency treated like a common criminal without even the charges other than his wife talking to the press. so base with this kind of challenge of liberal global order what should we do? do we be quiet and happy and we make love with china or get into war or just try to bring this to their attention by putting on tariffs which we know work.
not only - - this is to protect america. [applause] . >> this is to bring china to the table. >> you have the last word. and now you're closing remarks please. >> tonight is a memorable night the debate about the international liberal order that we have learned a lot so i have been an admirer of canada into pop up the sacrifice of china.
so first i really think that it is so complex is different court - - competitions. and actually china has opened up and we give great credit it doesn't matter if you have a white cat or black cat as long as you catch mice. not only developing the second largest economy so let's give china a little more space and let them compete with opening
china and then to communicate better. so let's work together to solve for peace and prosperity. thank you very much. [applause] . >> trying to pull out all the stops making this about president trump so this debate is not about him. you're probably disappointed but how the free and open societies are by authoritarian closed model.
and the rights to privacy but also affecting other nations of the world including our own. asked the two canadian citizens who were taken hostage and still in captivity. [applause] and one whose child was just born a few weeks ago. to expose the nature of their system so to create that crisis of confidence in ourselves so we are no longer able to stand up to this behavior with the exports of the authoritarian system.
and with those stakes of relations of the servile relationships with other countries. and those will allow china to cheat no longer allow china to export the authoritarian system to others. and then to keep himself in power. and also to export this revolutionary model to other countries. president teeten has put back into place to take control of the party the new vanguard are
party officials in suits carrying duffel bags of cash to corrupt governments in an effort to extend the influence and establish exclusionary areas of control and effort to intimidate us and others and the threat to free and open society is a normal way to do business is time to send a very clear message between being passive about the problem and wore. [applause] we need to have a conversation. thank you. [applause] . >> on behalf of the audience thank you for those hard
issues and new insights and issue no doubt that will inform the conversation here in canada and the global conversation for many years to come. thank you also to recognize the foundation and the terrific support they provide for us to gather together for this enriching discussion of the mind. thank you so here is the moment we have all been waiting for. our opportunity to vote a second time on the motion to figure out which of these two teams could sway opinion over to their side.
now we will do this again and put the resolution up to vote is china a threat? you are in favor of the motion? we will let the results populate this is a critical vote to remind them we have an online poll going on right now go there and see how you voted at the end of the debate versus everybody else watching online right now. also just for a moment let's review some of our votes that our fresh in her mind initial
vote 76 percent in favor of the motion 24 percent opposed we then asked the question how many are you are open to changing your mind? that was a pretty big number. 83 percent versus 17 percent that could be the pre- audience but we are seeing a second time. [laughter] it is déjà vu so let's see if those are the final results. there has been no change? i find it hard to believe. [laughter] so let's give this a moment.
it's always fun working with technology. this is the final? there is no change. [laughter] this audience went in with emotion and then went out at 74 percent this is only happened twice in 11 years, a draw between the two sides. it is a technical draw. [applause] very interesting results. thank you for coming prick if you are watching online stick around for a postdebate panel thank you for your attention